Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20-1-2024, wherein the petitioner was directed to close down the prayer house within 10 days, N Anand Venkatesh, J., stated conducting prayer meetings in a prayer hall requires obtaining permission from the authority concerned under the relevant rules. The Court stated that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, have a prayer hall to conduct prayer meetings without obtaining any permission, and accordingly dismissed the present writ petition.
Background
The petitioner was running a Trust in the name of “Word of God Ministries Trust”. The Trust was established in the year 2007 and ‘patta’ was also transferred in the name of the Trust in the year 2023. Regular prayer meetings were held in this property with family relatives and neighbours. The Petitioner purchased this property in 2023 and conducted prayer meetings continuously thereafter.
A complaint by the neighbour was given against the prayer meetings being conducted in the property and based on the same, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking for building permission and plan approval for construction of Church. The same was rejected by the Respondent 1. In the meantime, Respondent 2 issued a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to close the prayer house within a period of 10 days, failing which, action will be initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had undertaken that he will conduct the house prayer in a peaceful manner without using loudspeaker and microphone. The Court stated that the undertaking given by the petitioner falls short of the undertaking that was expected by the Court. Mere non usage of loudspeaker and microphone will not solve the issue.
The Court observed that the issue involved in the present petition was squarely covered by earlier orders passed by the Court. Reiterating T Wilson v. Collector, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 1739, the Court highlighted that conducting prayer meetings in a prayer hall required obtaining permission from the authority concerned under the relevant rules. Therefore, the petitioner could not, as a matter of right, have a prayer hall to conduct prayer meetings without obtaining any prior permission.
The Court further stated that the crux of the issue was that the petitioner could not convert a house into a prayer hall to conduct prayer meetings, as that required proper permission from the authorities. Therefore, Court concluded that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, have a prayer hall to conduct prayer meetings without obtaining any permission. Hence, the present writ petition was disposed of.
The Court directed Respondent 2 to remove the seal from the property, to enable the petitioner to take possession of the property. The property should not be utilised as a prayer hall for conducting prayer meetings and if the petitioner intended to convert the property into a prayer hall, the petitioner was directed to approach the Respondent 2 and seek for permission. If the Petitioner once again attempted to utilise the property as a prayer hall, it was left open to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.
[Pastor L Joseph Wilson v. Collector, W.P.No. 2036 of 2024, decided on 13-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K. Samidurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T.M. Rajangam, Advocate.